David B Harris <david@eelf.ddts.net> writes:
>> Again, you do consider DFSG applies to documentation. If so, I agree
>> with you. But I'm personaly not convinced (yet) it should be.
>
> Playing the devil's advocate here, let's pretend that "legally" it
> doesn't. You still think we should include obviously non-Free
> documentation in main? I mean, doesn't that go against the *spirit* of
> Free Software, at the very least?
Sure.
>> >> RMS himself gave no hope to a near modification of the GNU FDL.
>> >
>> > I don't care what RMS may or may not do. Why do *you*? It is
>> > completely
>>
>> Because it was RMS's reply that was quoted in the first message of the
>> thread, don't you recall?
>
> You mentioned a specific example; Emacs documentation. Thus, whatever
> political goals RMS may have is irrelevant to the discussion, as is his
> thoughts on the nature of non-Free stuff being "ethical".
It is relevant because RMS is Emacs's project leader, so he is
this upstream we have to bargain with, isn't he?
> *We* only care about whether it's Free or not. We don't what RMS may
> have done in the past for Free Software, not in this _specific_ example.
> We only care whether or not it's Free.
... DFSG-compliant.
>> > irrelevant to the discussion. All that matters is whether the
>> > licenses are Free, or not. It's that simple.
>>
>> And also if we have a hope to see the license being modified.
>
> Of course, we all do - and you're wanting to get it changed by ignoring
> its non-Free nature?
Be my guest: rms@gnu.org
>> No you don't care: you don't use Emacs.
>
> Excuse me? I use it regularly. It's not my regular editor though, and I
> constantly consult the on-line docs. So arguably it could affect me more
> than it affects a seasoned user.
I should never believe what people say on IRC.
--
Jérôme Marant
http://marant.org